You can find Ambassador (R) Selim Yenel’s speech below:

“The Future of Cooperation: Regional Strategies in a Shifting Global Order”

by

 Ambassador (R) Selim Yenel, GRF President

Exclusive Luncheon with AmCham

October 24, 2024

The historian and political commentator Walter Lacqueur once stated that ‘a crisis is a period between two crises’. You might find this a flippant remark but when you think about it, it is very apt for the situation we find ourselves in. We face a crisis in the north with the Russia – Ukraine war and one in our south with the conflict between Israel and Hamas or Iran’s proxies. But underlying these is a structural crisis which is global in nature.

After the Cold War ended the world went through a period where the United States was the remaining super power. Some even went far ahead to proclaim the end of history as liberalism had won over communism. Such grandiose statements fail to take into account how history works.

Nations found this period a respite from the Cold War strain as an opportunity to act more independently. After a decade of optimism in which the term “soft power” was gaining traction, the 9/11 attacks on the United States caused Washington to act in Afghanistan and Iraq. This demonstrated that hard power was back again.   

Soon the short unipolar era started to recede and the international scene began to enter a new phase that is different from the earlier periods. Rather than an ideological divide, it is similar to the power politics of the nineteenth century. The supremacy of the United States is increasingly being challenged as new power centres are emerging. China is becoming a major power not only economically and militarily, but more recently diplomatically as well. Yet, despite its efforts to be more active globally, Beijing’s reach is still not sufficient to compete with the United States.

Not only China but many middle powers such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to name a few are turning into regional actors. These countries have been using the new found space to be influential in their immediate neighbourhoods. They have also been resisting choosing sides between Washington and Beijing and they have engaged with both.

After the Soviet Union collapsed Russia could not find a sense of direction. It was neither part of the West nor part of the Third World. Despite some timid steps to engage Russia, the West kept Moscow at a distance. Under President Vladimir Putin Russia’s main goal was to redress this situation and regain its lost stature as a super power.

This has now been translated to expansionist aggression towards it neighbours causing instability.

The world is becoming increasingly unpredictable. I will touch upon the US elections in a minute but before that I want to focus on the changes in the international scene. Such as the phrase that is becoming more and more common, which is the Global South. 

Categorizations are difficult to make especially in international affairs. Just as the West is not a geographically correct characterization, the term Global South is also used in a loose manner. The West (or the Global North as this is recently used as well) not only comprises the United States but most of Europe as well as Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

So how do we distinguish the Global South? We cannot lump them all together. They are not homogeneous and have varying economic, political and cultural aspects as well as different levels of development. The Global South is not a fixed group and countries have aligned with the West or others through groupings such as the BRICS and/or the G-20. For that matter, some countries are members of both BRICS and the G20.

There are various formations comprising Eurasian countries. We all are aware of the complexity of relations between these countries and how they are influenced by many factors such as history and culture. To do business it is best to avoid political issues as much as possible and concentrate on the possible, such as finding common interests. One must be pragmatic. If relations are to develop, conditions should be put at a minimum.

Mentalities are different and one needs to have empathy.

The connection between these two spheres is becoming ever more crucial especially when we discuss energy, supply chains, climate issues and other matters. For example, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) faces competition from various global and regional initiatives such as the EU’s Global Gateway. Countries are exploring multilateral partnerships that do not solely rely on the investment of one country and often seek to diversify their economic ties. 

The European Union’s is not a military power but its strength lies as a regulatory power. To do trade with the EU you need to accept its standards. While the conditions regarding the green deal is becoming an impediment to some, it is also a game changer to raise one’s practices. 

As the countries of the Global South are courted by the big powers, they try to stay outside of their competition. On the one side is the United States and on the other are those such as Russia and China. This current struggle is not based on ideology but mostly about leadership and establishing a new order. 

The issues we face are not just about military power. Security challenges in the current geopolitical context have multiplied. There is a need to engage in security areas beyond the military and address global issues such as climate change, energy security, protectionism in trade, supply chain resilience, food scarcity, cyber security, financial instability and migration which are all inter connected. Additionally, the disruptive capacity of non-state actors is spreading.

As countries can get away with flaunting the territorial integrity of its neighbours the need for an international rules based system which may protect them becomes even more necessary. Not only acts of impunity are increasing, they remain unpunished as there is no international or even regional body to stop them. The unfortunate current tendency is to use hard power or threatening to use it.

Although many Western countries rhetorically supported the rules, they followed them selectively. The United Nations has become irrelevant in preventing the increase in conflicts. Diplomacy has failed to resolve disputes and the countries concerned decided to take matters into their hands. One clear example is how after thirty years of futile diplomatic talks Azerbaijan took back Karabagh from Armenia through military action.  

Legitimate concerns need to be taken into account by reaching a new consensus on these issues.

Systems work most effectively when competing parties:

Accept the rules of the game,

Acknowledge the existence of restraints on their exercise,

Reject the use of violence as a political weapon,

And respect other nation’s rights.

Until such a new system is established, ad hoc and innovative arrangements may have to be formed to bring opposing powers to the negotiating table. Yet this may create another problem in which only a few countries could dictate solutions.

In any case, even under worst situations, lines of continued communication between those in conflict and those that can contribute are crucial for lowering tension and creating conditions for mediation. This is where the countries of the Global South should step up.

As global institutions are becoming less influential, the world is entering an uncharted period. There is no past example to look for answers.

Fragmentation and polarization is happening at the same time.

Divergences have demonstrated that the rivalry between China and the United States differ from that between Washington with Moscow during the Cold War. Both the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Middle East conflict have polarized the world like never before.

The question many are asking is whether to reform the existing international set up or create a new one? The future may bring a profound change as certain regional power centres emerge within the Global South and vie for influence in their own right. There is already a shift in the balance with the growth of certain countries. There are several mini groups which are times overlapping but could also compete.

We may be heading towards a trend of ad hoc groups that are tailor structured according to the existing challenges. These regional powers could actually complement each other if they work together. This is where countries of Eurasia could play a role.

Even if nations may face the bipolarity of the United States and China, there will both be a multipolar and multi-layered world order with ascending new power centres.

Nonetheless, the current system, although impaired, continues to exist. Leaders keep on paying homage to the United Nations every September and use the General Assembly as a platform to outline policies and grievances.

Despite its failings Washington remains the preeminent power and whomever wins the Presidential election will have global effects. With all that is going on around the world with increasing conflicts and no way to check them, the main concern becomes unpredictability. In less than two weeks we may be facing such a situation that will have global consequences.

If the Democratic party candidate wins we have a general idea about the future course of actions. However, if the former President is elected we do not know how the wind will blow and in what direction.

The international order established after the Second World War was without precedent and the issues that go beyond borders and affects everybody cannot wait for another global calamity to force nations to take action.

Maybe we should find a new term such as the Global Middle in which regional powers will not hold back for the big powers to lead but take the initiative and force changes that will actually be representative of the current international situation.